Scholar

How do we verify whether Spiral Dynamics is an accurate model? Did anyone here look at the actual research done by don beck and clare graves? It seems to me that it is hard to make the case that SD is a scientific model.

Funny how that last one is called "Authoritarian" with him saying that subjectivity and intuition seems to play a much bigger role, and that in a way they become more tribalistic. To me it looks like it is describing what Leo has been transitioning to the past few years. Leo has in essence abandoned ideas of outside authority and is now embracing his own, with help of his subjective experience and intution. He is also much more harsh with people who are creating an environment which he doesn't like. He is actively excluding certain people from his group, which in a sense could be said to be tribalistic behaviour.

Even if they thought people followed an evolution akin to spiral dynamics, they could still deny that being further up the spiral is actually more healthy and desirable. That would be much harder to prove in terms of scientific means. This would mean we could call it science, but not established scientific fact. It seems like embracing the model like we do before it has actually been tested enough to be established to be accurate seems to be unjustifiable from the perspective of scientific reasoning. We can call it scientific data, but we cannot call it scientific fact. It seems like it is more than a scientific hypothesis, but it is not yet a firm and robust scientific theory. But for even this to be established we would need the actual research. Is this available somewhere online, because I couldn't find it when I was looking.

But none of it seems to have been independently replicated, so how can we call it scientific? It seems to be even hard to prove that the research was done at all, and that it had true predictive power. From what I was told, as long as these criteria are not met, this cannot be considered positive science. It seems like these criteria are hard to meet for the field of psychology in general. It was argued that this kind of model wouldn't be consider science, but rather something more akin to the humanities, history and so forth because it cannot fullfill the requirements of science. Philosophers who love philosophy of science. The problem I have is that I basically cannot rationally justify using SD other than that it seems to work really well and that it matches my intuitions. It would be useful if I could justify it rationally because then I could convince people to adopt it. For that it doesn't have to be scientific, but atleast we have to provide evidence that it has indeed predictive power.

What do you mean my universal metamodel? What Wilber is referring to in his books?

Well when I try to make the case for SD to people who are scientifically literate, they seem to object to pretty much all of it. No peer reviews, Don Beck being a little bit dubious and the way some of the studies were designed were also not very robust. In the end I can only appeal to intuition and how in practice this model seems to match well what I see happening in the world. But this could just be bias, so it is very unconvincing. All of the spiritual concepts that have been attached to SD seem to also make it more difficult for people to embrace. SD is and the research of Clare Graves is not really accepted by academia, and saying that it is because Graves died before he could publish it doesn't make a good case for it either. If Graves research wasn't publish, how do we know it was valid? Was it peer reviewed? Were the results reproduced indepentendly? Etc. etc.

Do we have a source on this?

Whether or not there is, we must be careful as to how our communication is affecting the world. Because of how tricky and subtle this dynamic is it can very easily lead to unintentional consequences. This is similar to how people can contribute to racist stereotyping while being well intentioned without themselves being consciously racist. If you leave the context open for interpretation, this is what well intentioned rhetoric can lead to. Truth can be harmful precisely because the ego can interpret it however it wants. Sometimes we can do a lot of harm by presenting one side of the truth, but not the other. When we present one perspective in the absence of the other.

Yes, this is all relativism. They point is to establish when some of these perspectives are useful and valuable, and when they are not. I was trying to make a case specifically for why the concepts you were using here create disharmony and reductionism that actually leads to suffering rather than healing.

The issue I see here is that you seem to be confusing your generalization and abstractions for actual reality. There is no such thing as a man and woman. There is no such thing as an asymmetry between all men and all women, because to even begin to create such a devision and abstract it into a single entity it requires reductionism that will render all nuance void. These kinds of abstractions serve a very specific purpose and are useful in a very specific context. We get into big trouble when we use these abstractions of groups that do not truly exist and apply them to the undeniable reality of the individual. Your example seems to be a good indicator for this confusion. Because the relationship between men and women is not at all similar to the relationship between a rabbit and a fox. A fox is in it's biological reality superior to that of the rabbit. This implies a sort of underlying reality that cannot be broken. It admits to the confusion of the abstraction and an generalization upon all individuals. It says in quite a sneaky way: "Men on average are more dangerous, therefore all men are more dangerous." Yet there are men that are completely unimpressive and a threat to nobody. To include these people into the group of the men, which you have previously abstracted to be a group that is more dangerous on average, is in and of itself discriminatory. Can you see this dynamic happening? It is very subtle even for someone who is very conscious. This dynamic for an unconscious person however will inevitably lead to actionable discrimination. The problem you are facing here is basically the discriminiation of the minority or the discriminiation of those who fall outside the norm. Because those who fall outside of the norm of the group which you have arbitrarily established are excluded from the group that are opposite to them (male vs female), they will actually be bound to be victims of discrimination. They are not the physicially superior individuals of the Male group, yet despite being physically inferior they are excluded from the Female group. They are essentially excluded from being viewed as a group worthy of moral consideration. In practice this has severe consequences for those individuals, in abstraction anyone you will ask will claim that they actually do believe that this group is worthy of moral consideration. Yet because this group does not fit the conventional abstraction and division, it will in practice find little consideration. Trans people have faced a similar issue in the past. It is the silent minority that is outside of the spectrum of the contemporary norms that will always be subject discrimination. Their suffering is always dismissed in the name of the majority, the norm, the abstraction.

He has to learn to be mature enough to explain to someone his perspective without running away. Leo could be unconscious of some of the underlying dynamics here. It would have been more valuable if he had explained to Leo why he found such a comment insensitive.

Sure but you can make this point without undermining the suffering of the fox. This analogy also lacks an important aspect in human relationships that seems to be overlooked here. Relationships are not some pure physical power exchange. There are physically weaker women who abuse their physically stronger men both physically and emotionally. There are many aspects to relationships that go beyond just physical dominance. To say that this is as rare as a rabbit abusing a fox is just very uncharitable. Even wikipedia has a better take on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_against_men Now of course rape is a specific thing that is not the same as domestic violence, but I fear that this kind of generalizing and dismissive attitude is quite unhealthy to the conversation as a whole. You can argue that many people use these arguments to delegitmize concerns about abuse towards women, which is obviously more common and intensive. But if we then create a position as a reaction to that, we are prey to the personal and egoic dynamics that are taking place here. You are creating an outgroup and positioning yourself against it, contributing to division amongst people. You lose objectivity due to being so heavily invested in the game.

For me it sometimes happens that when I have a hot cup of something and put it down when there is water under the cup, it will start moving. Seems like the water/air underneath is expanding and somehow creating movement.

He comes off very sleazy and narcissistic, especially in that recent debate with Stephen Woodford and the aftermath of that.

Why are you not using Spiral Dynamics here? Populism is basically a reaction to excessive aspects of orange, which makes people retreat to blue or progress to green. Obviously someone at blue orange will not be voting for someone with orange green values. I don't understand what you mean by "true populist".

You can do whatever you want, I am just here to reveal your devirly. I wasn't addressing factory farming nor even veganism. I was specifically addressing the way your ego is operating. I don't really think a discussion on veganism will be productive at all with someone like you because your identity is too constricted. You fundamentally cannot see Soul. It is not a simple fact. You are falling into the trap of the ego. You have no clue why you value humans more than animals, you simply claim that the reason why is because "humans are capable of more good in the world". The reason why I am showing you this in another context is so you can see that this is not at all the reason why you care about humans more than animals. It is a story your mind came up with so that it could continue with it's behaviour. You are not a perfectly rational being that one day decided that it will value other things by virtue of that capacity to achieve good in the world. Instead you have an emotional attachment, a configuration of identity, which then you rationalize by whatever means possible. This is fundamentally because of a lack of self-love. That which you judge others for is present in yourself, you simply hide it really well. If you think you do not judge anyone, watch a video of a human being tortured by a sadist. Unless you have abnormal psychology or are truly enlightened beyond humanity, you will judge that person deeply. And you will fail to recognize that you are judging yourself, that you are watching someone do something which you are doing to others aswell. Think about a racist who says black people are less worthy of life than white people because black people are less capable of creating good. The reason why the racist eventually has to abandon his position is because if there is a white human on the level of capacity to create goodness as what he perceives a black person to be, he has to agree that one of his ingroup is the same as one of the outgroup. This is really basic identity stuff, I don't know why so many people here fail to see this. Notice how your mind is creating a convinient example to escape the true horrors that your mindset would actually reduce to. We are not talking about a vegetable here, we are not talking about killing a disable person vs a healthy productive person. What we are talking about is killing a human on the level of ability to generate goodness as a cow, an ant or any other being, for nothing but your perception that you feel like veganism is not healthy to you. How much effort have you put into veganism, how many alternatives have you considered? And now ask yourself how much effort would you put into your diet if it wasn't a cow that you were killing, but instead a mentally handicapped person? Not a vegetable, a simple mentally handicapped person on the level of productivity of a cow. A cow can play, it can have children. It can show affection. It suffers, it feels loss. Imagine there was a 4 year old that would stay a 4 year old forever. Would you sacrifice that 4 year old to have optimal health? How much effort would you put into not killing that child? How much effort would you put into become a vegan if that was the only alternative? The fact that you have to think things through shows that you are operating from a post-hoc rationalization, an emotional (egoic attachment) position that you are trying to sell as anything but that. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Again, listen to your emotions. Watch an ISIS video and come back to tell us how you feel. If your feelings tell you that "He is just doing the best he can!", then your identity is actually evolved. If not, you are exhibiting ego, and your entire game of relativism is nothing but a tool for your ego. This is the fundamental problem with this kind of ideological relativism. We are talking about the Absolute Nature of existence, when you apply this to the relative world without bias, you will not be human anymore. Your positions will look like horror to any ego, because that is precisely what the ego is. It is the father of lies, the judge of Perfection. You are applying this relativism only in contexts in which it is convinient to your ego. Again ask Leo what the difference between exploiting a cow and exploiting a human is. Ask him if there is a difference between stepping on an ant and the jewish holocaust. It is funny to me how the ego appeals to the Absolute. You are playing with fire. If you can suffer on the cross and forgive all sinners, then I will accept your moral relativism. The Absolute is so radical that there are things Leo will deliberately not say to not look like a complete monster. It is even worse. It's not a position of Leo, but it is actually the Absolute Truth. That Truth will look like horror to any ego if it truly saw it's full breath.

Interesting how you hide your biased position behind a fact that you haven't even established. So far the human species has caused the sixth mass extinction and is causing suffering on a scale never seen before. What exactly do you mean by the capability to do good and postively change the world? What about a bee, which is essential for our ecosystems. Say that we could prove that a bee had more capability to do good than humans had, would you then say bees were to be more worth in your eyes than humans? And most importantly what do you say to a human who is not capable of doing anything positive, like a severely handicapped person? Are they to you less equal? Are they less worth of moral consideration than a healthy and productive human being? Can you see how your own discrimination, your own bias, if applied in the human context would lead to things you would find appalling? Tell your handicapped brothers and sisters that they are worth as much as an animal because they, in a relative sense, are not as capable of doing as much good and positively changing the world, not to forget that the goodness you have defined here is tailored so that it would specifically only apply to humans. The only way you could bypass that is by giving them extrinsic value, reveal your speciesism or by admitting that animals are worthy of moral consideration aswell. You are not very morally evolved, beyond a basic idea of relativism and subjectivism it seems like you cannot see the true consequences of your judgements. I want you to be very careful here and observe your own bias, your own ego, your own limitation of identity playing out and seeking arguments to defend itself, instead of developing a truly fair sense of morality. One day you might look at an animal and see yourself in it, when you give up the boundary you have set up to defend your egoic structures. Ego is survival and you are defending your survival. You aren't different at all from a slave owner, just that instead of race you use speciesism to justify your exploitation. Go and ask Leo if he thinks there is a difference between the exploitation of animals and the exploitation of humans. Go ahead and ask him about what is Good. If you can admit that human slavery is good and okay to do, then I will buy that you have abandoned all ideas of survival. Otherwise you are a slave of the ego, a slave to a limitation set upon yourself by the restrictions of survival, which by definition is more primitive than an ego which has dissolved that boundary and includes more of Other as Self. Say that there were no animals around, would you honestly tell me that you would breed mentally handicapped people and eat them if it meant for your health to be optimal? Would you walk around to someone saying they found that disgusting that they were just expressing their opinion? Most people on this forum use moral relativism as a tool to justify their egos needs. Most of you have no idea of the consequences of understanding true relativity. True Relativity means that raping and torturing a baby human is just as Good as exploiting a cow for milk or stepping on an ant. This is what the devil does, it seels it's own Devilry as some higher spiritual perspective, when it is not. Ironically you show no capacity for self-sacrifice, when that is a hallmark of spiritual development. Rather, you use spiritual concepts to justify your own survival and the suffering you inflict on others.

Suppose human slave-holder is stage turquoise, would you accept that? Suppose human rape and torture is stage coral, would you accept that?

Compassion and ideas/perceptions of fairness can be seen as egoic structures that serve a purpose for survival, it depends on how you look at things.

This is why I do not particularly like the approach Leo has for teaching spiritual development. He is very transparent and blunt with what the process is, how it will evolve and where it is supposed to arrive at. This leaves the information to be very vulnerable to be hijacked by the ego or to be used in any way the ego thinks is correct. His teachings are very big on deconstruction. Whilst deconstructing he is also constructing ideology that is intended to be used as scaffolding to aid the individual on their journey. Combine that with the fact that there is noone to actually guide the individual with this information and you have a recipe for disaster. Leo's teachings are more like the map of an explorer, who explains to you in detail what you can expect, how the terrain looks and so forth. This is why he has to be so detailed in his explanations, because he must give you the necessary information for you to then explore the terrain yourself and arrive at any given destination. It is in the end your responsibility to do the journey, there is no guide, only the map. You can imagine that this can lead to people getting lost, because even if they have the map, they still might not be skillful enough to do the journey by themselves. Combine that with the fact that the map Leo provides is not yet completed and that actually any individuals will start the journey with different pieces of the map (watching a few videos and basing their decisions on those rather than having watched all of them) and you can see how much problems someone who takes the journey might face. Other practices heavily involve teachers who do not simply give you a map, but rather guide you through the process. A zen master will not tell you everything about the process, the evolution and where you will arrive. That isn't necessary because they are there to guide you. They can walk through the terrain with you and help you whenever you get lost or face an obstacle. Leo is giving the map to the ego, so in the end the ego is free to do devilry with it. Ultimately Leo has no control over this, he is relying on you to be as autonomous as he is. This works for a certain kind of person, but for many others this can be dangerous. From what I can tell you have deconstructed certain parts of your ego far too soon. You have not developed a healthy ego, which is something you build over time. There needs to be a balance between deconstruction and construction. How will you have motivation to meditate, do yoga and so forth if you have deconstructed your motivation to do anything? This clearly will not work. You cannot just deconstruct any given part and expect to be able to build a wonderful castle. This requires deep knowledge of the ego in the first place, which you do not have. Instead of deconstruction, explore more of who you are. Don't judge yourself for any given thing you desire or hate. I have seen the deep dysfunction in many of the users on this forum, many of whom pride themselves in their deconstruction of things like compassion and fairness. They have a very myopic and simplistic view of spiritual evolution. They think everything should be deconstructed and let go of, they cannot see the beauty and importance in the evolution of egoic structures and what they allow us to do. Allow yourself to become aware of yourself and who you are without judging whether you are being "spiritual", "highly evolved" or "egoic". Just observe, appreciate it and understand it. You first understand, then you might deconstruct. Because if you deconstruct before you understand, you will never understand. Some things do not need to be deconstruct. This bastardization of spirituality as being nothing but a deconstruction machine to me is deeply dysfunctional. Spirituality is equally about creativity as it is about dissolution. And if in doubt, always choose love over hatred.

Notice that mathematicians have to look out to not accidentally divide by zero. Notice how strange that is and what happens when they do so. This is like the ego avoiding the underlying truth of Union, because if it were to embrace it, it's survival would collapse as it would be revealed as an illusion. The ego is basically an elaborate system of trying to avoid division by zero. Even the words they use. They made it illegal to divide by zero, like they made it illegal to take 5-MeO-DMT.

That's amazing. Think about it. If you divide by Zero, Math cannot make sense because every number is potentially every other number. Every number is unmanifested, every number is in perfect union with every other number. Division by Nothing, divided by Nothing. To make sense is to Divide, to manifest is to divide. Ignore that and you can have math, you can have manifestation, you can have every individual thing. But Divide by Nothing and you shall perish into Nothingness, because everything will become everything, which is nothingness. https://www.math.utah.edu/~pa/math/0by0.html As Leo said, Paradox is a feature, not a glitch. Of course all integers are equal, of course your whole number system will collapse if you truly embrace it fully. This is it's nature, the Illusion. It can only be upheld so long as you do not allow for Division by Nothing, Undividedness. You cannot escape the breadcrumbs, you can only deny them, as the mathematicians do. God = Division by Zero Look at this, it's just poetic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero Almost reads like a religious text if you ask me. Of course division by zero cannot be defined, because it is no thing.

Or it is an egoic reaction of you, who does view animals as inferior and less worth of moral consideration than humans. You are so biased that you think it's worse to show children how animals suffer than causing the suffering to the animals itself. The only way to change people is to show them what is going on, words are certainly not enough. What about the families in the slaughterhouses? What about the countless of mothers whose children are stolen from them so a human child can drink some milk? Your bias and ignorance is causing incomprehensible suffering.

Seems to me like you haven't been authentic in this relationship from the start, this is why it's a terrible idea. And also you might be trying to justify why everything was terrible now that you have given up the relationship, to reassure yourself it was the right choice. That's all low consciousness. Simply observe how much your ego is flailing about, this is an oppurtunity to grow.

Not sure if this is the right category to post this in but I couldn't find anyone that fit. Is there a dark theme for the forum, because the white background is really bright especially at night. It attracts all the little critters to the screen.